Let's ASSUME the logic behind Pascal's Wager is valid (even though it is not hard to point out why it isn't).

Normally, Pascal's Wager makes a false dichotomy (Specific god or no god) and assumes only 2 things (Heaven by belief or no god), but what happens when we do not do that?

***If there is no god***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a god, but no afterlife***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a universalist heaven***Atheists gain everythingTheists gain everything

***If you go to heaven via belief***Atheists gain nothing and lose everythingTheists have an extremely small chance of gaining everything (if they believe in the right god) and an extremely high chance of losing everything (if they believed in the wrong god)

At 5/2/2015 1:49:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:Let's ASSUME the logic behind Pascal's Wager is valid (even though it is not hard to point out why it isn't).

Normally, Pascal's Wager makes a false dichotomy (Specific god or no god) and assumes only 2 things (Heaven by belief or no god), but what happens when we do not do that?

***If there is no god***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a god, but no afterlife***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a universalist heaven***Atheists gain everythingTheists gain everything

***If you go to heaven via belief***Atheists gain nothing and lose everythingTheists have an extremely small chance of gaining everything (if they believe in the right god) and an extremely high chance of losing everything (if they believed in the wrong god)

The conclusion, when we consider other gods and other means of getting into heaven or if there is no afterlife, it is actually better (through the same logic of Pascal's Wager) to be an atheist.

The idea is that however small the chance might be (>0) that God exists it is outweighed by the infinite good that would await.

Your objection is known as the Many Gods Problem: since the wager gives no reason to believe in a specific God, it is just as possible that this God turns out to be an evil demon who sends all believers to hell and lets them suffer infinite pain, rendering Pascal's wager is completely pointless.

At 5/2/2015 1:49:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:Let's ASSUME the logic behind Pascal's Wager is valid (even though it is not hard to point out why it isn't).

Normally, Pascal's Wager makes a false dichotomy (Specific god or no god) and assumes only 2 things (Heaven by belief or no god), but what happens when we do not do that?

***If there is no god***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a god, but no afterlife***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a universalist heaven***Atheists gain everythingTheists gain everything

***If you go to heaven via belief***Atheists gain nothing and lose everythingTheists have an extremely small chance of gaining everything (if they believe in the right god) and an extremely high chance of losing everything (if they believed in the wrong god)

At 5/2/2015 5:59:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:So for Atheist to make out better than theist, God would have to be an evil god, or a god that rewards doubt and indecisiveness.

LOL, well with how so many Atheist see God of the bible as a evil tyrant, success beeches.

Or worship Satan, success for the atheist again.

Or just continue to be critical of others and unresponsive to supporting your own views.

Pascal's Wager deals with an undefined god (when it doesn't include a false dichotomy). When dealing with an undefined god, all possible ways of getting to an afterlife are valid and equally likely (including a god that would send non-believers to heaven and believers to hell).

You say that this god would be evil, but why do you assume that? By YOUR standards?

At 5/2/2015 1:49:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:Let's ASSUME the logic behind Pascal's Wager is valid (even though it is not hard to point out why it isn't).

Normally, Pascal's Wager makes a false dichotomy (Specific god or no god) and assumes only 2 things (Heaven by belief or no god), but what happens when we do not do that?

***If there is no god***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a god, but no afterlife***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a universalist heaven***Atheists gain everythingTheists gain everything

***If you go to heaven via belief***Atheists gain nothing and lose everythingTheists have an extremely small chance of gaining everything (if they believe in the right god) and an extremely high chance of losing everything (if they believed in the wrong god)

The conclusion, when we consider other gods and other means of getting into heaven or if there is no afterlife, it is actually better (through the same logic of Pascal's Wager) to be an atheist.

So for Atheist to make out better than theist, God would have to be an evil god, or a god that rewards doubt and indecisiveness.

LOL, well with how so many Atheist see God of the bible as a evil tyrant, success beeches.

Or worship Satan, success for the atheist again.

Or just continue to be critical of others and unresponsive to supporting your own views.

No, God would simply have to be reasonable and rational.

There are so many religions in the world that contradict one another and do little more than cause conflict and wars, it's easy to conclude they are all man made philosophies.

So, if God does exist, He will befriend and reward only the non-believer who was reasonable and rational not to be led along by man made religions and send to Hell those who supported them.

You may want to rethink your position on that one.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

I don't see how time spent praying and worshipping is wasted time, even if there is no God. A lot of people enjoy and find value and wisdom in religion and religious experience. Even if these things are illusory, if the individuals life was made a more enjoyable experience because of it, it hardly seems like a waste.

These kinds of arguments are just kind of dumb...Pascals Wager is dumb too because you can't just *choose* to believe in a God. You can pretend and go through the motions but if salvation requires faith and you don't have it, that's it and no amount of earthly hoop jumping will change that.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 5/2/2015 6:23:20 PM, thett3 wrote:I don't see how time spent praying and worshipping is wasted time, even if there is no God. A lot of people enjoy and find value and wisdom in religion and religious experience. Even if these things are illusory, if the individuals life was made a more enjoyable experience because of it, it hardly seems like a waste.

These kinds of arguments are just kind of dumb...Pascals Wager is dumb too because you can't just *choose* to believe in a God. You can pretend and go through the motions but if salvation requires faith and you don't have it, that's it and no amount of earthly hoop jumping will change that.

The purpose of this "Reverse" Pascal's Wager is to be used when someone wants to posit the logic of Pascal's Wager as valid (even if it isn't).

Now, if one enjoys the worship and praying, then it isn't necessarily a negative, but the end result still supports atheism.

Many theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

Will they regret it?

No, but it is a loss/negative none the less.

How can it be a loss when the loss does not exist?

The SENSE of loss doesn't exist, but the loss is still there.

Let's say that I had a few thousand dollars and someone stole a couple hundred without me ever noticing.

I do not have the sense of loss of money, but that does not mean the loss of money isn't there.

The same thing can be said with time spent doing those meaningless things.

The couple of hundred loss exists, because the remaining eight hundred exists, and you exist. In your variable, the believer ceases to exist, so does all consciousness of everything, including loss. That loss never existed, as the believer had no time to realize a loss that never became a loss.

Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.

The big assumption here is that you know better than the individual themselves what constitutes "wasted time". I'm sure if someone who only went to church because they feared Hell was informed beyond any doubt right before their death that there was no God, they would feel regret. If an individual who truly loved the church community and the illusory feelings of closeness with God was informed of the same, their opinion would probably be different. I know I wouldn't regret any time I put into religion if I was told God didn't exist (granted, I don't go to church that much) because I enjoyed it.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 5/2/2015 6:23:20 PM, thett3 wrote:I don't see how time spent praying and worshipping is wasted time, even if there is no God. A lot of people enjoy and find value and wisdom in religion and religious experience. Even if these things are illusory, if the individuals life was made a more enjoyable experience because of it, it hardly seems like a waste.

These kinds of arguments are just kind of dumb...Pascals Wager is dumb too because you can't just *choose* to believe in a God. You can pretend and go through the motions but if salvation requires faith and you don't have it, that's it and no amount of earthly hoop jumping will change that.

The purpose of this "Reverse" Pascal's Wager is to be used when someone wants to posit the logic of Pascal's Wager as valid (even if it isn't).

I mean, that's fair I guess. But it's just rebutting one really, really bad argument with an equally bad argument. I think it would be fun to argue but it makes my bullshiit detector go off like crazy. Does anyone even take Pascals Wager seriously?

Now, if one enjoys the worship and praying, then it isn't necessarily a negative, but the end result still supports atheism.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 5/2/2015 5:59:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:So for Atheist to make out better than theist, God would have to be an evil god, or a god that rewards doubt and indecisiveness.

LOL, well with how so many Atheist see God of the bible as a evil tyrant, success beeches.

Or worship Satan, success for the atheist again.

Or just continue to be critical of others and unresponsive to supporting your own views.

Pascal's Wager deals with an undefined god (when it doesn't include a false dichotomy). When dealing with an undefined god, all possible ways of getting to an afterlife are valid and equally likely (including a god that would send non-believers to heaven and believers to hell).

You say that this god would be evil, but why do you assume that? By YOUR standards?

No this would be an Evil God. the opposite of the living God.

All of you weighing don't match completely. Wasting time in a life that ends in oblivion is not a waste. To you it could be considered a waste if the goal of your life is to do your own will. But to the believer the time spent on prayer preaching is one of their goals and wills. So no loss.

The only way a Atheist gains and the Theist loses is if there is a GOD, that rewards indecisiveness and self centered behavior. That there is a God that rewards NOT seeking a God, NOT wanting a God. yeah a God that rewards NOT wanting a God.

LOL That's funny, the only way atheist make out is if there is a GOD! and a bad gift-er of rewards at that.

I mean, that's fair I guess. But it's just rebutting one really, really bad argument with an equally bad argument.

It's an implicit reducio ad absurdum. You take the assumptions of an argument and show they entail absurdities - thereby forcing the person on the other side to drop the assumptions of their argument, and hence the argument overall. For that purpose, it is served very well - but yes it is not meant to be an actual argument for atheism since proponents acknowledge the assumptions are just false.

I think it would be fun to argue but it makes my bullshiit detector go off like crazy. Does anyone even take Pascals Wager seriously?

At 5/2/2015 1:49:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:Let's ASSUME the logic behind Pascal's Wager is valid (even though it is not hard to point out why it isn't).

Normally, Pascal's Wager makes a false dichotomy (Specific god or no god) and assumes only 2 things (Heaven by belief or no god), but what happens when we do not do that?

***If there is no god***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a god, but no afterlife***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a universalist heaven***Atheists gain everythingTheists gain everything

***If you go to heaven via belief***Atheists gain nothing and lose everythingTheists have an extremely small chance of gaining everything (if they believe in the right god) and an extremely high chance of losing everything (if they believed in the wrong god)

I mean, that's fair I guess. But it's just rebutting one really, really bad argument with an equally bad argument.

It's an implicit reducio ad absurdum. You take the assumptions of an argument and show they entail absurdities - thereby forcing the person on the other side to drop the assumptions of their argument, and hence the argument overall. For that purpose, it is served very well - but yes it is not meant to be an actual argument for atheism since proponents acknowledge the assumptions are just false.

I've seen people make it as a serious argument although, to be fair, they were probably just having fun.

I think it would be fun to argue but it makes my bullshiit detector go off like crazy. Does anyone even take Pascals Wager seriously?

More than you think.

That's surprising...I don't think of myself as much of a philosopher, but I think the "you can't pretend to believe in God" criticism is pretty damning.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 5/2/2015 1:49:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:Let's ASSUME the logic behind Pascal's Wager is valid (even though it is not hard to point out why it isn't).

Normally, Pascal's Wager makes a false dichotomy (Specific god or no god) and assumes only 2 things (Heaven by belief or no god), but what happens when we do not do that?

***If there is no god***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a god, but no afterlife***Atheists lose nothingMany theists lost time during the only life that matters (praying, worshiping, etc.)

***If there is a universalist heaven***Atheists gain everythingTheists gain everything

***If you go to heaven via belief***Atheists gain nothing and lose everythingTheists have an extremely small chance of gaining everything (if they believe in the right god) and an extremely high chance of losing everything (if they believed in the wrong god)

The conclusion, when we consider other gods and other means of getting into heaven or if there is no afterlife, it is actually better (through the same logic of Pascal's Wager) to be an atheist.

So for Atheist to make out better than theist, God would have to be an evil god, or a god that rewards doubt and indecisiveness.

LOL, well with how so many Atheist see God of the bible as a evil tyrant, success beeches.

Or worship Satan, success for the atheist again.

Or just continue to be critical of others and unresponsive to supporting your own views.

No, God would simply have to be reasonable and rational.

There are so many religions in the world that contradict one another and do little more than cause conflict and wars, it's easy to conclude they are all man made philosophies.

So, if God does exist, He will befriend and reward only the non-believer who was reasonable and rational not to be led along by man made religions and send to Hell those who supported them.

You may want to rethink your position on that one.

Sure anything is possible, but God.

Still can't form a logical argument? Oh well.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

I mean, that's fair I guess. But it's just rebutting one really, really bad argument with an equally bad argument.

It's an implicit reducio ad absurdum. You take the assumptions of an argument and show they entail absurdities - thereby forcing the person on the other side to drop the assumptions of their argument, and hence the argument overall. For that purpose, it is served very well - but yes it is not meant to be an actual argument for atheism since proponents acknowledge the assumptions are just false.

I've seen people make it as a serious argument although, to be fair, they were probably just having fun.

Lol - I might just try it now that you mention it.

I think it would be fun to argue but it makes my bullshiit detector go off like crazy. Does anyone even take Pascals Wager seriously?

More than you think.

That's surprising...I don't think of myself as much of a philosopher, but I think the "you can't pretend to believe in God" criticism is pretty damning.

That doesn't help either, lol. In my case though Pascals Wager was more of a self-shielding from critiquing my pre-existing belief in God - so it did work in some sense in my case.

I have a hard time believing that any God that is relatable to humans in any fashion would care about whether or not people believed he existed.

I mean, that's fair I guess. But it's just rebutting one really, really bad argument with an equally bad argument.

It's an implicit reducio ad absurdum. You take the assumptions of an argument and show they entail absurdities - thereby forcing the person on the other side to drop the assumptions of their argument, and hence the argument overall. For that purpose, it is served very well - but yes it is not meant to be an actual argument for atheism since proponents acknowledge the assumptions are just false.

I've seen people make it as a serious argument although, to be fair, they were probably just having fun.

Lol - I might just try it now that you mention it.

I think it would be fun to argue but it makes my bullshiit detector go off like crazy. Does anyone even take Pascals Wager seriously?

More than you think.

That's surprising...I don't think of myself as much of a philosopher, but I think the "you can't pretend to believe in God" criticism is pretty damning.

That doesn't help either, lol. In my case though Pascals Wager was more of a self-shielding from critiquing my pre-existing belief in God - so it did work in some sense in my case.

I think it probably is used as a shield for a lot of people. But realistically I don't think vengeful "you didn't get saved so burn forever" evangelical protestant God would accept with the "I didn't actually believe, but at least I pretended so that's something, right?" defense

I have a hard time believing that any God that is relatable to humans in any fashion would care about whether or not people believed he existed.

That's funny, it's the opposite for me. The existence of God or at least some kind of supernaturalism is just kind of an axiom in my thinking. I probably couldn't get away from it even if I wanted to.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle